ewsieg

I absolutely believe that, I just have no idea what you believe. Still not sure if you folks are gaslighting me or what.

You do realize you are using evidence that he didn't violate the Logan act (work with a foreign government beyond legal limits) to claim he did violate the Logan act simply because you would have preferred the outcome, right? There is plenty to dislike about him and I wish there was a Washington think tank using him as a use case of what can the government do to ensure individuals don't have too much power, but I simply don't see it with this specific issue.

Thinking about something is not against the law, at least not yet. Show me an action he has made which shows he was conducting foreign policy? I'll wait.

I suspect you're just trolling me, but I truly want to understand the reasoning on why this particular issue can be viewed as a private citizen determining foreign policy. He is providing a service in Ukraine of which I have never heard any government response indicating that it's illegal for him to do so. In fact they, along with other countries we have aligned ourselves with, are actually paying Starlink to provide this service on behalf of Ukraine at this time. Ukraine asked for him to expand that service outside of the original scope, he provided his personal reasons, which frankly who cares about, he stated his company policy, which likely is predicated on legal regulations, and provided a legal reason why he wouldn't expand his service.

I found additional information which appears to pass the smell taste and I provided it. Everyone here has been posting information that Musk turned it off and no one has been able to provide any information to indicate he did that outside of tweets of people saying he did. As for the reasoning why he didn't turn it on, I provided what he said was his personal reason, clarification on an established policy that he enforced when requested by a foreign government to provide anyway, and what he said was the legal reason for doing so. Those don't have to align perfectly. In fact I provided another quote from him that stated that if the request came from the US, he would have turned it on. As of right now, I am not aware of any request by the US government for him to turn on Starlink in Crimea.

Isn't every US based company that provides goods or services in violation to the Logan Act by that definition? From major corporations like GM that chooses to sell their vehicles to other countries to small mom and pop shops that choose to service locally and not sell/service internationally?

While I agree that i'm sick of billionaires setting their own rules and there is a lot on Musk I don't like, I still don't understand what appears to be a narrative built on falsehoods being pushed here. You claim he needs to abide by the rules. Regardless of his personal reason on not turning on Starlink in Crimea, his position is that he would need the US Gov to authorize that. That does not seem unreasonable to me.

How was he conducting foreign policy? He agreed to provide them a service within their pre 2022 boundaries and he did it for free for awhile at that. To my understanding the service he is providing is not breaking US laws nor am I aware of the US demanding any regulation of that service. He has provided the service he stated he would provide, Ukraine just wanted more and per Musk, he believes providing that would have in fact been illegal. Maybe he is wrong, but it is not illegal to be wrong and/or error on the side of caution when it comes to the law. https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-joe-biden-us-government-responsible-for-starlink-debacle-2023-9#:~:text=Starlink is not allowed to,No such request came through."

Agreed, the war was already started, but it would have been a major escalation. Also, what's the obvious admission to breaking the logan act?

Just to note, Musk claims Starlink was never enabled in Crimea, not previously when he supposedly turned it off when he got word about an attack (which our own intelligence has privately complained they have been left in the dark too often by Ukraine) nor right now. What's the value in pushing this narrative? Additional note, the biographer has walked back this story as well. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-musk-sabotaged-ukraine-attack-russia-1234820180/

Not to mention less moving parts... many plusses with EV's. Oligarchs will encourage the realignment, once they feel they are in position to profit from it.

Ultimately the goal is regardless of your use case, there is an EV that can provide what you want. From a technology standpoint, it's pretty cool to see how far we've come in a short time. Unfortunately it just seems like politics has seeped into the market. If you're pro-electric, then you have to claim there are no fallbacks and you have to negate any criticism you see against it as petty issues that are being blown out of control. If you're anti electric, than you negate what the market can provide now and focus on long term concerns, like a power grid to handle the influx or cold/hot weather. I'm not going to pretend to know if your 70-90% number is accurate, and I would argue that even if that number is right, the fear of not having that long driving range, even if you rarely need it, will still hold people back. That said, I feel like our current technology can support a significant percentage of our driving population. If we can set expectations better, hopefully we avoid any sour taste with this transition.

We have some spare Nukes we could give them.

My buddy watched this guy open for the Rival Sons last night, turns out he's from the west side of the state. He said he sounded better in concert than any of the music he's found online so far.

First release off of the new Stones album and I actually like it...the music video ain't bad either.

She never would have turned me down, because I never would have thought I had a chance and bothered to ask her out anyway. She's been ok as a governor and you are right about other prominent female leaders in this state, there are several that I feel have major potential...I hope you're not including Nessel in that category though. I personally don't get the lovefest for Whitmer though. The only 'win' she got in her first term was the car insurance reform which put us from 50th highest insurance average in the nation all the way down to 46th highest. It also cost Brian Woodward his life and many others to have diminished care for a few years, but I guess we want to still label that a win for Whitmer, i'll give it to you. Covid money is getting the roads done and i'm hesitant to bash her on Covid, but the excuses this site has used to prop her up as one of the great Covid response governors has contributed to my perplexed view on her lovefest. I voted for her for the same reason I voted for Biden, I was content going back to the way politics were done pre-Trump. That said, I want better than that. Is she smart for using the lack of government transparency against the previous administration yet fully utilize that lack of transparency once she gets into power? Of course. Is she smart for doing the national media circuit, but for the most part refusing to speak with local media? Of course. Is she smart for recognizing when she can't ignore an issue any longer and working directly with MIRS to get her story, the way she wants it covered out, like a plane trip, which she may or may not have paid for, even though if she paid for it, that means the plane operator acted illegally since they are not a charter? Of course I realize even with my criticism, she's better than 99% of other politicians, and hence why i'd vote for her over pretty much any GOP candidate I can think of. Still, I guess I just want better.

I got on a tangent, but there seems to be a lot of talk that Whitmer is a likely frontrunner should Biden not run. She is going to have some issues she can get hit on. I personally would prefer her over most democrats I can think off, but she has flaws.....like being party to the death of Brian Woodward.

nm

Correct, which now MCCA is looking at this as a 'loss' to the fund and due to Whitmer's work to take another 3 billion out for 'refunds', our fee is being raised again. Wait, what? The legislative and executive branches aren't responsible for how others interpret laws they pass?

I have previously complained about the bi-partisan bill and not just Whitmer being at fault for this. Ultimately though, Whitmer signed it. She could have sent it back to fix the error (which she has admitted was an 'error') but she signed it anyway. And even if you're right, he somehow survived and was healthy for 38 years and for some odd reason once he wasn't given the care that he deserved (and paid for) that just coincided with his decline, he deserved to decline at home where he could have made his own decision to quit his job and try to make the best of his remaining years, instead he was forgotten by Whitmer (and others).

He gave them Starlink, including components for it, for free. (Additional service was later paid by the coalition) I keep finding articles saying that Musk has confirmed that he turned it off, but even the sources provided only state that he refused to expand coverage into Crimea, not that he turned off anything he had already provided. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4193788-musk-acknowledges-he-turned-off-starlink-internet-access-last-year-during-ukraine-attack-on-russia-military/

This is like arguing there is no need for health insurance because the law says an ER can't refuse to provide you life saving treatment. https://www.michiganradio.org/2022-02-08/it-has-destroyed-my-life-a-car-crash-survivor-says-of-changes-to-michigans-car-insurance-law He was living a comfortable and productive life, in his own home, until this law stripped the opportunity for him to get the care that he needed, but also the care that he was insured for when he paid his premiums leading up to his accident in 1983. Meanwhile at the time his care was cut, there was 27 billion dollars saved up specifically for his needs. It would not have cost the State of Michigan or any insurers a dime to simply allow grandfathered individuals to stay in that system. Instead of doing a thing about it, Whitmer did pull a few billion to give everyone 400 bucks. Once his care was cut, he was forced out of his home and his health deteriorated quickly. He was left to die and not a damn person in Lansing gave a ****.

Ahh, so pick specific facts, disregard context, and ignore other facts if they don't fit your view of the world....got it. Context is that a bipartisan group of Michigan legislatures, at the urging of Whitmer, all worked together to not only kill Brian Woodward, but they realized the mistake they made and refused to fix it. Whitmer did sign the bill into law, so context aside, she is directly responsible for his death.